Travel Directive – Parking

Background

The employees grieved the department's decision not to reimburse for parking expenses.

Bargaining Agent Presentation

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievors are authorized to use their Personal Motor Vehicle (PMV) on government travel on a daily basis and that this is evidenced by the grievors' "Blanket Travel Authority" for the fiscal year and a "Certificate of Motor Vehicle Supplementary Business Insurance" form in advance for the year. Therefore, the grievors should be reimbursed for actual costs of parking their vehicles as per section 3.1.11 of the NJC Travel Directive:

"Parking charges are normally not payable when the employee is on duty at the workplace. For every day on which an employee is authorized to use a private vehicle on government travel, the employee shall be reimbursed the actual costs of parking the vehicle for that period of time".

The Bargaining Agent representative submitted that possibly the strongest evidence that the grievors are in fact authorized to use their PMV daily is found in section 129 (1) of Part II of the Code which demands that without delay the officer shall investigate the matter in case of a work refusal and in section 127 where an officer may be called in to investigate a contravention.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the grievors' responsibilities clearly require them to be immediately mobile and this is evidenced by the fact that they were hired with the prerequisite that they have a valid driver's license or have personal mobility to an extent usually associated with the possession of a valid driver's licence.

In the grievors' office, there are no government fleet vehicles available and that the grievors' only practical choice to carry out the duties of their employment is to have access to their PMV.

While many officers work from home, they are nonetheless required to report to the office a few times a month for "Duty Officer Days". During this time, they are still required to carry out their regular duties, such as attending to emergencies if called out.

The Bargaining Agent representative noted that according to the department policy instituted on April 1, 2009, if an emergency comes up the grievors are considered to be authorized to use their PMV and parking will be paid. Because emergencies are an unknown until they occur and if an officer requires a vehicle to drive to the emergency, clearly officers are authorized every day to use their private vehicles and should be reimbursed parking as per section 3.1.11.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the rationale for reimbursing officers for parking has not changed. In fact, officers are paid parking on days where they work in the office and are called out. There is an expectation that officers will have access to their PMV every day, otherwise how would they get to emergencies on-site. The employer does not provide any other practical mode of transportation and operational requirements are such that officers require their PMVS for government business on a daily basis.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the intent of the NJC Travel Directive was to reimburse employees for parking when they are authorized to travel. The officers in this case are authorized to travel daily because the duties of their employment demand it.

Departmental Presentation

The Departmental representative maintained that although the Department recognized that it had inadvertently reimbursed parking fees in the past the practice was ceased when the parking exercise conducted by Public Works and Government Services Canada brought to light the discrepancy between the Department's past practice and the intent of the NJC Travel Directive.

All affected employees were advised many months prior to the correction and were provided with clarification.

The Departmental representative submitted that the Travel Directive was applied correctly in light of the manner in which officers perform their daily duties and respond to emergencies. The officer's main duty is to visit employer facilities to perform on-site inspections. To complete this responsibility the officers plan their own schedule of inspections. The officers are also required to respond to occupational health and safety incidents. To complete this responsibility management designates an officer on a rotational basis as a Designated Duty Officer (DDO). On those days, the officers are expected to report to their respective office. Most of the calls are responded by telephone and the DDO is not automatically the officer expected to respond when the incident requires the presence of an officer on-site. Based on the location of the incident, management may determine that another officer already conducting an on-site inspection would be closer to respond.

Every time an officer is required to travel to an employer site, they are considered to be on travel status and are reimbursed the applicable expenses. This included parking fees at the office.

The Departmental representative noted that based on the information provided the grievors attended their office to perform the regular duties of their position on each of the days for which they claim and were denied reimbursement. They were not on government travel. The Departmental representative also confirmed that on those days the grievors were not called out to attend to any on-site emergencies.

The Departmental representative indicated that although there are no crown-owned vehicles available to the grievors, an officer on DDO who had to respond to an emergency and who did not have access to a PMV would be provided with an alternative mode of transportation, for example a rental vehicle.

Executive Committee Decision

The Executive Committee noted that the Travel Committee could not come to an agreement on the intent of the Travel Directive in this case. The Executive Committee considered the Committee's report and could not reach consensus either. As such, the Committee reached an impasse.